For many, a significant source of caffeine comes from drinks. These are beverages that provide an individual with an energy surge that lasts for a variable period of time. Coffee, which is perhaps the best known caffeinated drink, derives all of its energy enhancing properties from caffeine.
A distinction needs to be drawn between perceived energy and calorific energy. Tea and coffee, particularly espresso, are classic examples of drinks which themselves have little calorific content, unless combined with milk and/or sugar, yet provide a perceived increase in a consumer's alertness or energy levels. The term “energy drinks” is typically used to describe drinks which increase not only perceived energy levels but also provide calorific content, usually in the form of sugar. A classic example would be Lucozade®. Other examples of “energy drinks” include Red Bull®, Monster®, various colas etc.
Since caffeine itself is bitter, flavours are added to mask its taste. Typically in addition to high levels of caffeine, energy drinks contain high levels of sugar or sweeteners or other bitter taste blocking ingredients such as sodium, sorbitol or taurine. This often leads to energy drinks that are very sugary with a medicinal, sickly and artificial taste.
One disadvantage of providing caffeine in liquid form is that consumers tend to consume their drink to quench thirst rather than simply for the caffeine content. They may therefore take in more caffeine in one serving than they need to keep them alert or is good for them. This leads to the consumer experiencing energy highs and lows. In the case of some energy drinks the surge in caffeine may also be accompanied with a surge in blood sugar levels, which is bad for health, particularly where the consumption of these drinks is a regular occurrence.
Energy drinks are typically sold in a standard size with a particular caffeine content. Consumers commonly perceive that they should consume an entire energy drink in one sitting, meaning that the amount of caffeine consumed per bottle is the same regardless of size, gender, caffeine tolerance of the individual and so on. This can be vastly in excess of what a consumer actually needs to achieve the feeling of being alert or energized.
Caffeine ingested via energy drinks is primarily absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract. Orally ingested caffeine typically takes 30-45 minutes to achieve maximum absorption. When consuming caffeinated drinks there is therefore a lag between the beginning of caffeine intake and the consumer's perception of their energy/alertness levels. As a result, the consumer often takes in more caffeine than they really need or want to consume. There are therefore problems with energy drinks.
Consumers are becoming ever more health conscious and are seeking alternatives to existing caffeinated drinks. In particular, consumers are looking towards natural products which are lower in sugar and provide a caffeine fix without the disadvantages of energy drinks. Coffee and tea are a more healthy alternative but are not a portable solution and are not readily available at all times. Also coffee uses roasted natural caffeine and if the beans are over-roasted then they can become toxic leading to a number of adverse consequences for the drinker.
One alternative produced by Loud Truck® are “energy gummy bears” which are gummy compositions containing caffeine from guarana extract. These “energy gummy bears” are marketed in a packet containing 9 gummies and contain a total caffeine content of 32 mg (3.5 mg/piece). An advantage of providing caffeine in non-liquid form is that as it is chewed the caffeine is absorbed through the lining of the cheeks and the tissues in the mouth more rapidly and efficiently than through the GI tract and thus counters fatigue more rapidly.
The level of caffeine in existing gummy products is still low and a consumer would need to consume over 20 pieces to have the same caffeine intake as a regular coffee from a typical coffee outlet.
It would therefore be advantageous to provide a caffeinated gummy product which would have a higher caffeine content per piece because the product would then be truly portable and not require the consumer to carry around large quantities of gummies which is impractical. Furthermore this would enable consumers to have a longer lasting caffeine hit and would also discourage consumers from consuming too many pieces in one sitting. Given the sugar content per gummy, eating too many gummies is not ideal. That requires an increase in the content of caffeine within each gummy piece. However, as previously noted, any increase in caffeine content leads to organoleptic problems due to the bitterness of caffeine.
Existing caffeine gummies use high levels of sugar and artificial sweeteners to mask the taste of caffeine. Existing caffeine gummies contain artificial sweeteners like sorbitol which is a laxative and whose daily consumption needs to be restricted. There is therefore a need for a low-sugar alternative, laxative free product with a higher caffeine content.
The present inventors have now found that a particular flavouring is capable of masking the taste of caffeine even when caffeine levels within the gummy composition are high, and can simultaneously achieve this without requiring sugar levels as high as in existing gummies